Despite my own copious critiques, even I must concede that the American mainstream media really does print the bad news about Islamic gender apartheid—but it does so without drawing any “politically incorrect” conclusions, not even on their op-ed pages.

Over the years, the American mainstream media has printed articles about Islamic and African female genital mutilation, the public gang-rapes of innocent young girls in Pakistan (like Mukhtaran Bibi) and the repeated gang-rapes of girls and women in Darfur by ethnic Arab Muslims (the New York Times simply refused to use the word “Muslim”). The media has covered the disfiguring acid attacks on girls and women in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran. Maddeningly, it draws no conclusion.

On November 3, 2004, an Iranian man, Majid Movahedi, poured a bucket of acid on Ameneh Bahrami’s head as she was leaving work. He did so because she had rejected his many marriage proposals. Poor Bahrami was blinded and disfigured. Since then, she has endured 17 operations, including one in Spain which failed to successfully reconstruct her face. She now has only 40% of her sight and only in one eye.

Under Shariah law, the victim has the right to demand an eye-for-an-eye if other negotiations fail. In this case, the great Islamic Republic of Iran was prepared to have a physician drop acid into Movahedi’s eyes—unless his victim forgave him.

On July 31st, 2011, at the last minute, in the hospital, she did so. Movahedi wept.

I dunno. His crime was vicious—but the legal system in Iran is just as vicious. Shariah law is medieval. It may once have worked for warring tribes in Arabia 1400 years ago. Islamic imperialism and conversion by the sword has now led to people in south and central Asia to chanting from the Arab-language Qur’an without understanding a single word of Arabic—and to adopt harsh Arab desert justice in places where Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Zoroastrianism once reigned.

Maybe poor Ameneh should marry the fiend; maybe Majiid should atone for his crime by serving and supporting his victim for the rest of his life. But Ameneh didn’t want him before; how much more repulsive he must seem to her now.

On July 31, 2011, on the same day Ameneh forgave the man who blinded and disfigured her, the New York Times ran two pieces on their front page. One article continued its non-stop jihad against the anti-jihadic/anti-Shariah bloggers (whom it blames for the “Islamophobic” Norwegian massacre of mainly ethnic infidel Norwegians). The other article, right beneath it, is titled: “Afghans Rage at Young Lovers; A Father Says Kill Them Both.”

“Lovers”? Hardly. These two seventeen-year-olds have possibly—probably—exchanged glances and perhaps a love letter or two. Maybe they once held hands or even once dared to share a quick, almost chaste kiss. Yes, these two seventeen year old Major Muslim Sinners decided it was better to marry than to burn in Hell. On their way to their (perhaps secret) wedding, “A group of men spotted the couple riding together in a car, yanked them into the road and began to interrogate the boy and the girl. Why were they together? What right had they? An angry crowd of 300 surged around them, calling them adulterers and demanding that they be stoned or hanged.”

The police rescued them from the raging mob but in the process killed a man. The girl’s family now want her dead; the mob wants the boy dead too because he is a Tajik and she is a Hazara. The family of the dead man have also sworn to kill her—“unless she marries one of their other sons (in order to pay) her debt.”

Funny, you don’t look like a barbarian.

The reporter, Andrea Elliott, notes that another young Afghan couple who had also fallen in love “were stoned to death (in Kunduz) by scores of people—including family members—after they eloped. The stoning marked a brutal application of Shariah law, captured on a video.”

Thus, Elliott’s article, while painting a horrifying picture of raging, out-of-control rural Afghan lynch mobs, also praises the Afghan police in Herat for having rescued the young Romeo and Juliet as well as the local clerics for having refused to condemn them. This is surely a point in their favor, but what conclusion does Elliott draw? Does she honestly believe that the police will prevail against the girl’s family who have been shamed and are now out for her blood? Is there no expert she might have consulted on this point? Does Elliot really understand that such Shariah practices are coming our way, that in fact, they are already here?

In 2006, Afghan-Canadians Khatera Sidiqi and her fiancé, Feroz Mangal, were gunned down in Ottawa by her brother who acted on behalf of his father. Her crime? She refused to allow her father, who had abused both her and her mother, to be involved in the wedding plans.

In 2008, In Henrietta, New York, an Afghan mother persuaded her son to honor murder his sister, Fauzia Mohammad, because she was “too western.” Luckily, the honor killing failed.

In 2009, a high-profile Canadian case in Kingston involved the calculated murder of an Afghan first wife and three Afghan daughters by their Afghan father, brother, and second wife/stepmother.

Please note that I am only listing the honor murder of daughters by their family of origin—something that is typical of Islam, and to a lesser extent of Sikhs and Hindus in the West. Western domestic violence, including domestically violent femicide, does not usually involve daughter-killing and for such reasons.

Islamic gender apartheid has quietly, openly, and fully penetrated the West. Female genital mutilation is going on in North America and in Europe, as is polygamy, forced veiling, normalized daughter-and wife-beating, forced arranged marriage, and honor killing.

This deeply concerns me. It has also alarmed many of the maligned anti-jihadic bloggers. What protection are we able to offer the Muslim girls and women who become citizens of our countries? What kind of prosecutions will we be able to mount against their attackers?

“Norwegian government officials who are supposed to help immigrant women enter the work force have instead formed an ‘unholy alliance’ with those women’s husbands. The husbands want the women to stay home, keep house, and raise children; and the employment counselors don’t want to harass the women by trying to push them into jobs, since their chances of finding employment are poor anyway. So instead they arrange for the women to take hobby-like courses in subjects like food preparation and needlework. Far from bringing them closer to the work force, these courses ensure that they won’t neglect their domestic duties. The government, in short, has made a compromise; it keeps Muslim women busy within their husbands’ strict boundaries and ignores their need to develop into skilled workers – and active citizens.”

Storhaug, like me and a handful of other feminists, are all haunted by the Western feminist silence about Islamic gender apartheid in the West. She explains that silence succinctly and accurately.

“The feminists are obsessed with their own ethnic Norwegian causes: longer maternity leave, shorter work days for the same pay – in short, everything that can give them a better life, materially and socially. At the same time, many of the classical feminists appear to be old socialists blinded by the multicultural dream – a dream, alas, that has led them to accept the oppression of women in sizable segments of the population.”